Bill and all,
On 21/11/2019 16.25, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Nov 21, 2019, at 12:18 AM, Brian Dickson <brian.peter.dick...@gmail.com>
wrote:
IMHO, there is *no* reason not to advance .zz
For the record, I think it’s a really bad idea to start re-purposing the ISO
user-assigned codes. Just as bad an idea as if they started re-purposing 1918
space.
Hm... this is an interesting point.
I just checked the ISO 3166 glossary:
https://www.iso.org/glossary-for-iso-3166.html
And it says:
"User-assigned codes - If users need code elements to represent country
names not included in ISO 3166-1, the series of letters AA, QM to QZ, XA
to XZ, and ZZ, and the series AAA to AAZ, QMA to QZZ, XAA to XZZ, and
ZZA to ZZZ respectively, and the series of numbers 900 to 999 are available.
NOTE: Please be advised that the above series of codes are not
universal, those code elements are not compatible between different
entities."
So the intention of the ISO at least is that these codes are used by
users. (I'm not sure what the scary warning means.) Certainly I have
made heavy use of .Q* and .X* in my own testing, with the assumption
that these would never be assigned (and yes, there is .TEST but
sometimes you need more than one one TLD).
Cheers,
--
Shane
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
